How Did Homosexuals Win The Marriage Debate? Why, With Commie Help, Of Course!

Podcast: Play in new window | Download | Embed

Subscribe: Email | RSS

Mandeville, LA – Exclusive Transcript – “The first thing that had to occur [for homosexual marriage to come about] is there had to be a movement that was willing to and would have the courage to assail the Western civilization status quo.  That was that divorces were things that were not advisable.  Society had determined, the husband and wife, for the sake of the family and of the home, that they should be very rare in occurrence, and they should certainly never become no-fault, and as far as Catholics go, they should never happen at all.”  Check out today’s transcript for the rest….

Begin Mike Church Show Transcript

Mike:  Back to this homosexual marriage thing, which consumed a large part of the news at the top of the hour, I just heard.  Let’s just walk through this quickly here and understand a few things that had to happen before any of this could happen.  The first thing that had to occur is there had to be a movement that was willing to and would have the courage to assail the Western civilization status quo.  That was that divorces were things that were not advisable.  Society had determined, the husband and wife, for the sake of the family and of the home, that they should be very rare in occurrence, and they should certainly never become no-fault, and as far as Catholics go, they should never happen at all.  Once God’s made a union, you can’t undo it.  There’s only one force in the universe that can do it, and it’s not the Supreme Court.

---

 

[private |FP-Monthly|FP-Yearly|FP-Yearly-WLK|FP-Yearly-So76|FP-Founding Brother|FP-Founding Father|FP-Lifetime]

The first thing that had to happen is that had to be chipped away at.  That had to be eliminated.  That opposition had to go.  In order to do this, we would have to emancipate the women.  Whose idea was it to emancipate the women?  Come on, we covered this two weeks ago, three weeks ago, and we even covered it a little bit last week.  Whose idea was it that to undermine the American giant and the giant of Western civilization or what was left of it that women needed to be emancipated from the home, from the rearing of children and what have you?  Whose idea was it?  According to Pope Pius XI and those that were alive at the time, it was the CP’s idea.  It was the Communist Party’s idea.  It was one of the ways that, as they sought conversion for reticent Western civilization residents, into the commune and the communist way of life and the Communist Party and all the horrific things that went along with that.

One of the things you’d have to do is break down the other parts of Western civ.  So marriage and the family was obviously target number one.  I’d say that they’ve largely accomplished this.  They haven’t completely won the day, but they have most certainly won many, many battles.  The first battle that had to be won was the emancipation of the women.  If you emancipate the women, what’s the next thing the emancipated females wanted?  Wait a minute, you just emancipated me from Betty Crocker.  I’m still stuck to that beer-guzzling jerk.  The next thing that had to be attached was what?  Marriage.

You have to follow this.  Once you could undermine the first, once you could begin that one, then you could begin to attack the institution of marriage.  Then you could convince heterosexuals and you could convince otherwise faithful Christians of all denominations that what they had been taught from the canon, from the pulpit, from the gospels, what they had been taught was bogus, and that what God really wanted for them was to be happy with five wives.  You can have one at a time but five wives, maybe six.  Five husbands, maybe six, maybe four.  That’s what he really wanted for you.  He didn’t want you to be devout, didn’t want you to be faithful and all these other things.

This all has occurred.  I’m reviewing history to you.  This isn’t could occur, it all has occurred.  It would have and it seemed at the time like a fantasy.  There’s no way.  We’re never going to go along with that.  Oh, but temptation is strong.  The allure of illicit, noncommittal sexual relations for as long as you can imagine them, the allure of living the pagan, hedonistic lifestyle, the allure of escaping out from under the thumb and the bonds and the bondage of a devotional, reverent life of keeping eternity as our ultimate goal won out, didn’t it?  This is basically the lesson of the last part of the 20^th century, and certainly the lesson of the enlightenment, of this entire edict which has now manifested itself in so many different ways, inside so many different institutions that there are so few left that it hasn’t manifested itself inside of.  We’re better off counting off the ones where it hasn’t invaded or where it hasn’t been installed.

Take, for example, this YOLO garbage that the children are now being fed and regurgitating today.  [mocking] “Well, you only live once.”  That’s not true.  Not if you’re a man or a woman of faith you don’t only live once.  You may only live once inside this particular miserable existence of a body, but you most certainly, if you’re a man or a woman of faith, what do you have faith in?  You have faith in that second life.  What is YOLO?  YOLO is just a continuation of this.  [mocking] “You only live once so you may as well hump, you may as well drink, you may as well do all these things you can do while you do them.”

The first thing that had to happen was the emancipation of the female.  Then once the female was emancipated, then it was held out for the men.  Look, you can sample the merchandise without having to buy the cow.  You get the milk without having to buy the cow.  And even if you buy the cow, men were told, if it goes wrong, don’t worry, brother.  This is no longer a faith-based sacramental act that’s made by and under the order, the authority of almighty God.  No, this is made by the state.  If the state can make it, the state can undo it.  So that had to occur and then that came to pass.

Then, after that, after an entire generation, some fought it like I’m trying to fight this one, they’re, of course, defeated.  After an entire generation lived under it, then another generation was born into it.  Most of us are the product of divorces.  Most of our children or far too many of them will be the product of divorces.  What has that done?  That has changed the paradigm.   It has undermined the virtue and the sanctity of the institution of the holy marriage.  That’s what it’s done.  This is what paves the way for anyone to come along and go, [mocking] “You guys don’t treat it like it’s anything holy or sacred.  Why should the homosexual have to treat it like it’s anything holy or sacred?”  If I was a homosexual and I was going to argue this, that’s what I would argue.  You heteros have done a rotten job.  You Christians, you stink at this.  Why should we be shut out?  That’s how I would argue it.  Of course, the reverent has to argue that: Well, man is corruptible and fallible.  The inerrant word of God is not, so, no, even though yes, man has succumb to the current corruption and heresy, we’re not going to canonically abandon the sacrament.  It’s not going to happen.

What to do to reverse this?  The first thing you have to do to reverse this is to acknowledge that this is the work of him.  Is it fair to say that the evil, hated Communists, you know, those ones we were told our entire lives that the hated Communist was hated because they were evil.  And if they were evil, what does that mean, ladies and gentlemen?  That means they were possessed.  Possessed by whom?  They were possessed by Beelzebub, Lucifer, Satan, demons.  Remember, these guys, when these evil forces are working on something, they don’t sleep, they don’t take naps, they don’t take breaks, and they won’t stop until we’re dead.  This is just the next logical phase.

The first thing that has to be done is that has to be acknowledged.  What is it that you’re up against?  What are you going to combat evil with, true evil, the fallen one?  What are you going to combat them with?  Are you going to make a movie about this?  Are you going to combat them with that?  What are you going to combat them with, a guy in a black robe, a judge?  That’s not going to work.  The only force that can be called into being here is the opposing force.  That’s the first thing.  Who is the enemy?  Who is it that he is mortally afraid of?  Who is it that he knows he can never beat, he can’t triumph over?  He can win little battles and he can win souls, but he cannot win the war.

Remember, two things happen in this universe: what God allows and what God brings into existence, what he commands.  He’s allowing this.  You know why he’s allowing it?  Because he’s allowing a purge.  He’s allowing Beelzebub to cull the unworthy.  That’s what he’s doing here.  Do we have to play along with it?  No, we don’t.  So what has to happen here?  Again, acknowledge what it is that’s driving this, who the enemy is.  Acknowledge then who it is that is the elixir, the antidote for the enemy.  Choose your path wisely from there.  Back to Stephen Baskerville at Crisis Magazine:

[reading]

The willful neglect of justice in adjudicating divorce—not the dissolution of household per se—was the vitiating outrage of “no-fault” divorce. By not challenging the state’s claim that it may dissolve marriages without any consideration for the consequences or injustices inflicted on the forcibly divorced, the Church followed the state into the realm of amorality, a realm suited to the aggrandizement of institutional power but fundamentally antithetical to both the Gospel and a free society.

No public debate preceded this ethical bombshell in the 1970s, and none has taken place since.

[end reading]

Mike:  In other words, folks, they didn’t fire a shot but they’ve won the battle.  They didn’t have to fire a single shot and they won it.  Again, see first hour.  Where are the men and women of courage?  That’s what’s needed here.

[reading]

[/private]Legislators “were not responding to widespread public pressure but rather acceding to the well-orchestrated lobbying of a few activists,” writes Bryce Christensen.Critically, these are the same sexual ideologues who have since expanded their campaign into a much broader agenda of sexual radicalism: same-sex marriage, abortion-on-demand, sex education, women in combat, homosexuals in the military, Obamacare, and more. Feminists were drafting no-fault divorce laws in the 1940s, which the National Association of Women Lawyers now describes as “the greatest project NAWL has ever undertaken.”

The result effectively abolished marriage as a legal contract. Today it is not possible to form a binding agreement to create a family.

[end reading]

Mike:  Mr. Baskerville nails it right there.  It’s a binding agreement made by God with you and your spouse to form a family.  That’s what a marriage is.  In order to form a family, biologically speaking, under that binding agreement, it would have to be one man and one woman.  Those two are called upon under that authority to make a family.  Don’t try to feed me any of your scientific arguments about artificial inseminations and brothers getting involved for lesbian couples and what have you.  That’s not the intent of the sacramental marriage, it isn’t.

End Mike Church Show Transcript